From: Sean Christopherson <seanjc@google.com>
To: Paolo Bonzini <pbonzini@redhat.com>
Cc: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, kvm@vger.kernel.org, dmatlack@google.com
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2 12/25] KVM: x86/mmu: cleanup computation of MMU roles for two-dimensional paging
Date: Tue, 8 Mar 2022 18:44:49 +0000 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <YiekIeAfGpPnqHT0@google.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <2e6c4c58-d4d2-69e2-f8ed-c93d9c13365b@redhat.com>
On Tue, Mar 08, 2022, Paolo Bonzini wrote:
> On 3/8/22 19:11, Sean Christopherson wrote:
> > On Mon, Feb 21, 2022, Paolo Bonzini wrote:
> > > Extended bits are unnecessary because page walking uses the CPU mode,
> > > and EFER.NX/CR0.WP can be set to one unconditionally---matching the
> > > format of shadow pages rather than the format of guest pages.
> >
> > But they don't match the format of shadow pages. EPT has an equivalent to NX in
> > that KVM can always clear X, but KVM explicitly supports running with EPT and
> > EFER.NX=0 in the host (32-bit non-PAE kernels).
>
> In which case bit 2 of EPTs doesn't change meaning, does it?
>
> > CR0.WP equally confusing. Yes, both EPT and NPT enforce write protection at all
> > times, but EPT has no concept of user vs. supervisor in the EPT tables themselves,
> > at least with respect to writes (thanks mode-based execution for the qualifier...).
> > NPT is even worse as the APM explicitly states:
> >
> > The host hCR0.WP bit is ignored under nested paging.
> >
> > Unless there's some hidden dependency I'm missing, I'd prefer we arbitrarily leave
> > them zero.
>
> Setting EFER.NX=0 might be okay for EPT/NPT, but I'd prefer to set it
> respectively to 1 (X bit always present) and host EFER.NX (NX bit present
> depending on host EFER).
>
> For CR0.WP it should really be 1 in my opinion, because CR0.WP=0 implies
> having a concept of user vs. supervisor access: CR0.WP=1 is the "default",
> while CR0.WP=0 is "always allow *supervisor* writes".
Yeah, I think we generally agree, just came to different conclusions :-) I'm
totally fine setting them to '1', especially given the patch I just "posted",
but please add comments (suggested NX comment below). The explicit "WP is ignored"
blurb for hCR0 on NPT will be especially confusing at some point.
With efer_nx forced to '1', we can do this somewhere in this series. I really,
really despise "context" :-).
diff --git a/arch/x86/kvm/mmu/mmu.c b/arch/x86/kvm/mmu/mmu.c
index 9c79a0927a48..657df7fd74bf 100644
--- a/arch/x86/kvm/mmu/mmu.c
+++ b/arch/x86/kvm/mmu/mmu.c
@@ -4461,25 +4461,15 @@ static inline bool boot_cpu_is_amd(void)
return shadow_x_mask == 0;
}
-static void
-reset_tdp_shadow_zero_bits_mask(struct kvm_mmu *context)
+static void reset_tdp_shadow_zero_bits_mask(struct kvm_mmu *mmu)
{
- /*
- * KVM doesn't honor execute-protection from the host page tables, but
- * NX is required and potentially used at any time by KVM for NPT, as
- * the NX hugepages iTLB multi-hit mitigation is supported for any CPU
- * despite no known AMD (and derivative) CPUs being affected by erratum.
- */
- bool efer_nx = true;
-
- struct rsvd_bits_validate *shadow_zero_check;
int i;
- shadow_zero_check = &context->shadow_zero_check;
+ shadow_zero_check = &mmu->shadow_zero_check;
if (boot_cpu_is_amd())
__reset_rsvds_bits_mask(shadow_zero_check, reserved_hpa_bits(),
- context->shadow_root_level, efer_nx,
+ mmu->shadow_root_level, is_efer_nx(mmu),
boot_cpu_has(X86_FEATURE_GBPAGES),
false, true);
else
@@ -4490,7 +4480,7 @@ reset_tdp_shadow_zero_bits_mask(struct kvm_mmu *context)
if (!shadow_me_mask)
return;
- for (i = context->shadow_root_level; --i >= 0;) {
+ for (i = mmu->shadow_root_level; --i >= 0;) {
shadow_zero_check->rsvd_bits_mask[0][i] &= ~shadow_me_mask;
shadow_zero_check->rsvd_bits_mask[1][i] &= ~shadow_me_mask;
}
@@ -4751,6 +4741,16 @@ kvm_calc_tdp_mmu_root_page_role(struct kvm_vcpu *vcpu,
role.base.access = ACC_ALL;
role.base.cr0_wp = true;
+
+ /*
+ * KVM doesn't honor execute-protection from the host page tables, but
+ * NX is required and potentially used at any time by KVM for NPT, as
+ * the NX hugepages iTLB multi-hit mitigation is supported for any CPU
+ * despite no known AMD (and derivative) CPUs being affected by erratum.
+ *
+ * This is functionally accurate for EPT, if technically wrong, as KVM
+ * can always clear the X bit on EPT,
+ */
role.base.efer_nx = true;
role.base.smm = cpu_mode.base.smm;
role.base.guest_mode = cpu_mode.base.guest_mode;
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2022-03-08 18:44 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 66+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2022-02-21 16:22 [PATCH v2 00/25] KVM MMU refactoring part 2: role changes Paolo Bonzini
2022-02-21 16:22 ` [PATCH v2 01/25] KVM: x86/mmu: avoid indirect call for get_cr3 Paolo Bonzini
2022-03-08 16:16 ` Sean Christopherson
2022-03-08 16:21 ` Paolo Bonzini
2022-03-08 16:32 ` Sean Christopherson
2022-03-08 16:43 ` Paolo Bonzini
2022-03-08 16:53 ` Sean Christopherson
2022-03-08 17:14 ` Paolo Bonzini
2022-02-21 16:22 ` [PATCH v2 02/25] KVM: x86/mmu: nested EPT cannot be used in SMM Paolo Bonzini
2022-03-08 16:18 ` Sean Christopherson
2022-02-21 16:22 ` [PATCH v2 03/25] KVM: x86/mmu: constify uses of struct kvm_mmu_role_regs Paolo Bonzini
2022-03-08 16:22 ` Sean Christopherson
2022-02-21 16:22 ` [PATCH v2 04/25] KVM: x86/mmu: pull computation of kvm_mmu_role_regs to kvm_init_mmu Paolo Bonzini
2022-02-21 16:22 ` [PATCH v2 05/25] KVM: x86/mmu: rephrase unclear comment Paolo Bonzini
2022-03-08 16:39 ` Sean Christopherson
2022-02-21 16:22 ` [PATCH v2 06/25] KVM: nVMX/nSVM: do not monkey-patch inject_page_fault callback Paolo Bonzini
2022-03-08 17:13 ` Sean Christopherson
2022-03-08 20:34 ` Sean Christopherson
2022-02-21 16:22 ` [PATCH v2 07/25] KVM: x86/mmu: remove "bool base_only" arguments Paolo Bonzini
2022-03-08 17:15 ` Sean Christopherson
2022-02-21 16:22 ` [PATCH v2 08/25] KVM: x86/mmu: split cpu_mode from mmu_role Paolo Bonzini
2022-03-08 17:36 ` Sean Christopherson
2022-03-08 17:49 ` Paolo Bonzini
2022-03-08 18:55 ` Sean Christopherson
2022-03-09 9:58 ` Paolo Bonzini
2022-03-09 15:38 ` Sean Christopherson
2022-03-09 15:40 ` Paolo Bonzini
2022-02-21 16:22 ` [PATCH v2 09/25] KVM: x86/mmu: do not recompute root level from kvm_mmu_role_regs Paolo Bonzini
2022-03-08 17:41 ` Sean Christopherson
2022-02-21 16:22 ` [PATCH v2 10/25] KVM: x86/mmu: remove ept_ad field Paolo Bonzini
2022-03-08 17:42 ` Sean Christopherson
2022-02-21 16:22 ` [PATCH v2 11/25] KVM: x86/mmu: remove kvm_calc_shadow_root_page_role_common Paolo Bonzini
2022-03-08 17:48 ` Sean Christopherson
2022-03-08 17:50 ` Paolo Bonzini
2022-03-08 18:17 ` Sean Christopherson
2022-03-08 18:18 ` Paolo Bonzini
2022-02-21 16:22 ` [PATCH v2 12/25] KVM: x86/mmu: cleanup computation of MMU roles for two-dimensional paging Paolo Bonzini
2022-03-08 18:11 ` Sean Christopherson
2022-03-08 18:24 ` Paolo Bonzini
2022-03-08 18:44 ` Sean Christopherson [this message]
2022-03-08 18:38 ` Sean Christopherson
2022-02-21 16:22 ` [PATCH v2 13/25] KVM: x86/mmu: cleanup computation of MMU roles for shadow paging Paolo Bonzini
2022-02-21 16:22 ` [PATCH v2 14/25] KVM: x86/mmu: store shadow EFER.NX in the MMU role Paolo Bonzini
2022-02-21 16:22 ` [PATCH v2 15/25] KVM: x86/mmu: remove extended bits from mmu_role, rename field Paolo Bonzini
2022-03-08 19:02 ` Sean Christopherson
2022-02-21 16:22 ` [PATCH v2 16/25] KVM: x86/mmu: rename kvm_mmu_role union Paolo Bonzini
2022-03-08 19:15 ` Sean Christopherson
2022-02-21 16:22 ` [PATCH v2 17/25] KVM: x86/mmu: remove redundant bits from extended role Paolo Bonzini
2022-02-21 16:22 ` [PATCH v2 18/25] KVM: x86/mmu: remove valid " Paolo Bonzini
2022-02-21 16:22 ` [PATCH v2 19/25] KVM: x86/mmu: simplify and/or inline computation of shadow MMU roles Paolo Bonzini
2022-03-08 19:35 ` Sean Christopherson
2022-03-08 19:41 ` Sean Christopherson
2022-03-09 10:33 ` Paolo Bonzini
2022-02-21 16:22 ` [PATCH v2 20/25] KVM: x86/mmu: pull CPU mode computation to kvm_init_mmu Paolo Bonzini
2022-03-08 19:45 ` Sean Christopherson
2022-02-21 16:22 ` [PATCH v2 21/25] KVM: x86/mmu: replace shadow_root_level with root_role.level Paolo Bonzini
2022-03-08 19:48 ` Sean Christopherson
2022-02-21 16:22 ` [PATCH v2 22/25] KVM: x86/mmu: replace root_level with cpu_mode.base.level Paolo Bonzini
2022-03-08 19:49 ` Sean Christopherson
2022-02-21 16:22 ` [PATCH v2 23/25] KVM: x86/mmu: replace direct_map with root_role.direct Paolo Bonzini
2022-03-08 19:52 ` Sean Christopherson
2022-02-21 16:22 ` [PATCH v2 24/25] KVM: x86/mmu: initialize constant-value fields just once Paolo Bonzini
2022-03-08 20:58 ` Sean Christopherson
2022-03-09 10:34 ` Paolo Bonzini
2022-02-21 16:22 ` [PATCH v2 25/25] KVM: x86/mmu: extract initialization of the page walking data Paolo Bonzini
2022-03-08 20:02 ` Sean Christopherson
Reply instructions:
You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:
* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
and reply-to-all from there: mbox
Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style
* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
switches of git-send-email(1):
git send-email \
--in-reply-to=YiekIeAfGpPnqHT0@google.com \
--to=seanjc@google.com \
--cc=dmatlack@google.com \
--cc=kvm@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=pbonzini@redhat.com \
/path/to/YOUR_REPLY
https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html
* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line
before the message body.
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox